Ogmius815 posted:

See also: Murkowski, Lisa

Axetrain posted:

Didn't Cheney's daughter try the same thing? Using her politically connected father to get her carpet bagging rear end elected in Wyoming without actually even living there?

Star Man posted:

Erik Prince though....oh god.

hanales posted:

I can't decide who Wyoming deserves more, Prince, Barraso or a Cheney.

Party Plane Jones posted:

Wyoming deserves a volcanic eruption, tbh.

hanales posted:

I can't decide who Wyoming deserves more, Prince, Barraso or a Cheney.

Party Plane Jones posted:

Wyoming deserves a volcanic eruption, tbh.

Star Man posted:

Only if I'm allowed to axe murder all Cascadians.

VitalSigns posted:

Just plotting a Brady score vs raw homicide rate doesn't prove what you think it does. You have to compare the change in homicide rates before and after a law (ideally to a control if available).

VitalSigns posted:

Blindly comparing urban and rural areas also doesn't tell you much, of course urban areas have a higher per capita crime rate; "you're more likely to be murdered in California than in Idaho" tells you more about the percentage of the population that lives in dense urban areas in California compared to Idaho than it does about the effect of policy differences between those states. But you're a pretty smart guy so I suspect you know this already and are either hoping your audience doesn't or you're just rationalizing your way to the conclusion you want to reach.

VitalSigns posted:

Turns out when you review 64 years of academic studies on the subject both within the United States and internationally, gun control done right turns out to be effective and you can also determine which laws work and which are useless or counterproductive.

CommieGIR posted:

I liked it better when Dead Reckoning just tried to wave away concerns as 'un-ethical' rather than try to play off bans as slippery slopes.

Dead Reckoning posted:

LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:

How do you feel about the CDC not being able to conduct research on gun violence in America? It seems like you enjoy raw data, but right now there's a dearth of it because the apparatus meant to find out about these things isn't allowed to conduct any studies about it.

I'm curious if you'll argue some dumb slippery slope bullshit like republicans do when anyone brings it up or if you'd be okay with more data on the subject to have a more informed discussion.

Condiv posted:

I remember when DR was in the dapl thread and defending the oil companies bulldozing artifacts and destroying them so they wouldn't have to reroute the pipeline

Also defending said companies blasting protesters with water cannons in below freezing temperatures and siccing attack dogs on them

just if you bother to engage him seriously

Dead Reckoning posted:

So for eight years after Australia's great gun grab, it didn't do anything, and while I'm sure you're keen to point to the post 2002 decline as proof that confiscation works if only you give it enough time, the United States actually experienced a greater decline in per capita homicide rate over the same period, despite the sunset of the federal assault weapon ban and the liberalization of concealed carry laws in many states.

What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries? posted:

The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the South Australia Firearms Act

A summary of these laws is provided in Table 3. In regards to homicide rates, Ozanne-Smith et al. (78) examined the NFA using Victoria as a control group, given that this state had previously enacted firearm restrictions in 1988. The authors found a reduction (14%) in overall firearm death rates in states implementing NFA restrictions relative to Victoria (78). Another study by Chapman et al. (115), analyzed data from 1979 to 2003 and found evidence of an acceleration in the reduction in firearm deaths and all homicides after the passing of the law; although there was also a steeper reduction in firearm homicides, the trend ratio was not significant. In addition, no firearm mass shootings occurred in Australia after the NFA compared with 13 in the prelaw period (115). In contrast, Baker and McPhedran (116) compared observed versus predicted homicide rates after the NFA (1979–2004 data) in autoregressive integrated moving average models and found no association between the law and homicide rates, although the downward trend was observed to continue in the years after the law. Neill and Leigh (117) criticized Baker and McPhedran (116) for not using the log of death rates (which made expected rates become negative). Adjusting for new model specifications, they found a reduction in the firearm homicide rates associated with the NFA (117).

Dead Reckoning posted:

There is one example I can think of where there were actually control States though. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 and came into effect in Feb of '94. The interesting thing is, 18 states and the District of Columbia had already passed similar laws, so one could actually compare the 32 "treatment" states to the 18 "control" states. The result? A reduction in firearm suicides among those 55 or older, but no significant difference in homicide and suicide for treatment and control states otherwise.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I think if going from a more urban state to a rural one is consistently sufficient to completely drown out the difference between the most restrictive and least restrictive gun laws in the country, that rather neatly supports my point that gun laws don't do much. Plus, your theory fails to explain the difference between rural states in the South and rural states in the Northeast/Northern Great Plains.

Dead Reckoning posted:

C'mon, man, it's right there in the title: "What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?"

What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries? posted:

The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the South Australia Firearms Act

Another study by Chapman et al. (115), analyzed data from 1979 to 2003 and found evidence of an acceleration in the reduction in firearm deaths and all homicides after the passing of the law;

What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries? posted:

South Africa's Firearms Control Act

This law banned certain firearms (including automatic guns), required an additional license per each gun owned and passing training tests to obtain licenses, increased age requirements for possession/purchase of firearms, and mandated background checks (Table 3). Matzopoulos et al. (126) evaluated the association between the Act and changes in homicide rates in 5 major cities (2001–2005 data). Results showed a decreasing trend (13.6% per year) for firearm homicides through the implementation of the program and until 1 year after the law was fully implemented. Reductions in nonfirearm homicides were also observed, although not as pronounced as the ones observed for firearm homicides.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm just trying to figure out the mindset of someone who thinks, "80* people killed per year in active shooter incidents, that's totally unconscionable, but 20 per year is an acceptable price for Americans to enjoy their God-given right to hunt."

_{*1,043 people killed in active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 per the FBI, because let's face it, people only care about this when it's something like U of T Austin, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando, or Vegas.}

Condiv posted:

I remember when DR was in the dapl thread and defending the oil companies bulldozing artifacts and destroying them so they wouldn't have to reroute the pipeline

quote:

Dakota Access nevertheless also prominently considered another factor in crafting its route: the potential presence of historic properties. Using past cultural surveys, the company devised DAPL’s route to account for and avoid sites that had already been identified as potentially eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. With that path in hand, in July 2014, the company purchased rights to a 400-foot corridor along its preliminary route to conduct extensive new cultural surveys of its own. These surveys eventually covered the entire length of the pipeline in North and South Dakota, and much of Iowa and Illinois. Professionally licensed archaeologists conducted Class II cultural surveys, which are “focused on visual reconnaissance of the ground surface in settings with high ground visibility.” In some places, however, the same archaeologists carried out more intensive Class III cultural surveys, which involve a “comprehensive archaeological survey program” requiring both surface visual inspection and shovel-test probes of fixed grids to “inventory, delineate, and assess” historic sites. These latter surveys required coordination with and approval by State Historic Preservation Officers.

Where this surveying revealed previously unidentified historic or cultural resources that might be affected, the company mostly chose to reroute. In North Dakota, for example, the cultural surveys found 149 potentially eligible sites, 91 of which had stone features. The pipeline workspace and route was modified to avoid all 91 of these stone features and all but 9 of the other potentially eligible sites. By the time the company finally settled on a construction path, then, the pipeline route had been modified 140 times in North Dakota alone to avoid potential cultural resources. Plans had also been put in place to mitigate any effects on the other 9 sites through coordination with the North Dakota SHPO. All told, the company surveyed nearly twice as many miles in North Dakota as the 357 miles that would eventually be used for the pipeline.

quote:

The improved relationship, however, had its limits. In the spring, the Corps worked with Dakota Access to offer consulting tribes an opportunity to conduct cultural surveys at PCN locations where the private landowner would permit them. This included 7 of the 11 sites in North and South Dakota. Three tribes took the opportunity, and it paid off. The Upper Sioux Community identified areas of tribal concern at three PCN sites, and Dakota Access agreed to additional avoidance measures at all of them. At one of these sites, the tribal surveyors and the Iowa SHPO declared a site eligible for listing on the National Registry that had not previously been identified on Dakota Access’s surveys. Dakota Access agreed in response to this discovery to bury the pipeline 111 feet below the site to avoid disturbing it. Similarly, the Osage Tribe identified areas through their surveys that they wished to monitor during construction, and the company granted that request too. Standing Rock took a different tack. The Tribe declined to participate in the surveys because of their limited scope. Instead, it urged the Corps to redefine the area of potential effect to include the entire pipeline and asserted that it would send no experts to help identify cultural resources until this occurred.

R. Guyovich posted:

shut up about posters and do the politics posts. if out of some weird masochism dr posts in the thunderdome you can rake him over the coals there

VitalSigns posted:

You should see the vaccine thread, where he was using gun idiot logic to logic himself into being an anti-vaxxer.
Highlights:
-Kids die in bike accidents all the time so why do they need vaccines, liberals?
-What if my infant wants to get measles (you know, probably), big government shouldn't take that choice away from me my baby.
-Individual rights, big government has no ethical right to put something in my baby's body (unless it's hot hot lead and we're talking about scary black babies who might be packing heat)
-Vaccination is a slippery slope to a Demolition Man dystopia where big government takes away your dog and doesn't let you have sex or eat butter because you might get hurt.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

I just checked Twitter for the first time in months and discovered that the NASCAR drivers I follow are significantly to the left of the Democrats I follow. Im loving confused.

BrandorKP posted:

All things carry thier end in-themselves. Our society is no exception. We can look at it honestly and without fear and I think Coates does that.

So long as it is the case that within our society that can be done, then redemption and hope have a ground in and for our society and it is not at its end.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm just trying to figure out the mindset of someone who thinks, "80* people killed per year in active shooter incidents, that's totally unconscionable, but 20 per year is an acceptable price for Americans to enjoy their God-given right to hunt."

Dead Reckoning posted:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39

Pg 13-14

(Internal citations omitted)

Pg 29:

(Internal citations omitted)

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm just trying to figure out the mindset of someone who thinks, "80* people killed per year in active shooter incidents, that's totally unconscionable, but 20 per year is an acceptable price for Americans to enjoy their God-given right to hunt."

VitalSigns posted:

You should see the vaccine thread, where he was using gun idiot logic to logic himself into being an anti-vaxxer.
Highlights:
-Kids die in bike accidents all the time so why do they need vaccines, liberals?
-What if my infant wants to get measles (you know, probably), big government shouldn't take that choice away from me my baby.
-Individual rights, big government has no ethical right to put something in my baby's body (unless it's hot hot lead and we're talking about scary black babies who might be packing heat)
-Vaccination is a slippery slope to a Demolition Man dystopia where big government takes away your dog and doesn't let you have sex or eat butter because you might get hurt.

Majorian posted:

Significantly fewer deaths is a better outcome than significantly more deaths.

botany posted:

you all ready for some really really racist poo poo?

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/917361118368034818

zxqv8 posted:

...the gently caress?

CommieGIR posted:

Can we get a link to this?

Main Paineframe posted:

I don't think it can be done within our society. At the very least, not our current society. At the very least, there isn't much basis for optimism.

CommieGIR posted:

Its Ben Shapiro.

BrandorKP posted:

Things become what they are.

Most people are familiar with the story of Jonah. What they don't realize is that Jonah is running from what Jonah is. That's the metaphor I'm seeing it in now. Is the US in the belly of the whale, in the process of becoming, or is this what we are. I don't think we get to know until it plays out.

I'm going to risk that Trump isn't what we are. We are well and truly hosed anyway if he is.

BrandorKP posted:

Things become what they are.

Most people are familiar with the story of Jonah. What they don't realize is that Jonah is running from what Jonah is. That's the metaphor I'm seeing it in now. Is the US in the belly of the whale, in the process of becoming, or is this what we are. I don't think we get to know until it plays out.

I'm going to risk that Trump isn't what we are. We are well and truly hosed anyway if he is.

The Kingfish posted:

I'm sorry but how is that what Jonah is about? Basically the whole point of Jonah is that Jonah never develops or grows as a person.

The Kingfish posted:

I'm sorry but how is that what Jonah is about? Basically the whole point of Jonah is that Jonah never develops or grows as a person.